SunXia wrote:I do find it saddening that there are certain aspects of religions that we don't approve of but we can't stop people practicing their religion regardless of how we dislike it or other such things!! I think when it becomes hate preaching and hateful actions (bullying attacking etc) then yes that should be condemned but not that they are willfully practicing what they believe in!!

I fully disagree both on the matter at hand and as a general principle.

It is known that this organization was founded by a science fiction writer who published a few silly pseudo scientific theories and, after these were utterly ridiculed, proposed them again in the form of creed by adding a fictional background to brainwash adepts into paying him for his teachings.The silly falsities claimed by acolytes about their founder and the content of their creed are a sad symptom of indoctrination as is the alienation of those from their previous social relation, the savage money fraud, the fair pray policy and the crimes against people and governament.The reason why this organization managed to earn a religion status in many countries is the political power granted by the huge wealth they built up and the confusion which stems from the absence of a clear definition of religion.As this organization already proved to be a menace for people who are brainwashed into relinquishing their rights and governamens I am of the opinion that it should be purged.

Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that a governament should eradicate any creed/religion/organization which is a menace to either the citizens' well being or it's structure.

Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that a governament should eradicate any creed/religion/organization which is a menace to either the citizens' well being or it's structure.

If they are breaking the law, I agree that the civil authorities have the right to penalize the wrongdoers. But I don't think people should be banned from being able to follow a religion, no matter how silly it is. If the religion is clearly breaking some kind of fraud laws I guess the criminals involved should be punished. Aside from simply enforcing the law, I don't think the government has a right to "purge" them.

Part of separation of church and state entails that the government should not interfere in religion. It's not just that religion should not be involved in government. Even if what you're saying is utilitarian in a way, I don't agree with it entirely because I feel like it violates certain freedoms of religion and expression.

I assume that menacing a nation or it's people's well being would usually, albeit not necessarily, happen to be against the law.

The problem is that this view is largely interpretative and subjective. It may seem self-evident to you that the Church of Scientology is a big evil in the world, but not everybody thinks the same way. This is why freedom of religion exists.

There are probably some things that the Church of Scientology has done which are illegal, breaking fraud or other laws. I honestly don't know. I am not a legal expert. Outside of that, I don't believe they should be punished.

Exposing a creed as a deceit, punishing the perpetrators and making sure that the same bunco isn't conducted again hardly qualifies as a purge, my bad for choosing incorrect words.

Alright it seems like we are coming close to an agreement. I understand where you are coming from and really only felt strongly about that particular word, because to me it was reminiscent of the PRC suppression of Falun Gong, a theocratic state trying to eliminate non-state religions or other similar circumstances throughout history. There is a difference between separating church and state, denying privileges to clerical parties, and outright attempting to destroy organized religions within a society.

By all means, people who oppose scientology should publicly air out the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of the religion. That's freedom of speech. By all means should people within the church of scientology who are breaking the law be punished. But that's about the extent of what should happen. The Church of Scientology still has a right to exist even if it's a joke to most sane, rational people.

Jordan wrote:The problem is that this view is largely interpretative and subjective.

It seems to me that the real problem is the lack of a definition for religion.

Jordan wrote:[...]but not everybody thinks the same way. This is why freedom of religion exists.

I am of the opinion that convincing people of things which are known to be false and thus intentionally misdirecting their lives is a harmful act of deceit whose perpetration shouldn't be allowed.

Concerning the matter at hand, I think it is unreasonable to view a demonstrably fraudolent, detrimental and threatening organization with neutral respect as long as it manages to snatch the label of religion.

I don't share your view that Scientology is not valid as a religion. I don't view it as less legitimate than other legitimate religions. There were many things that other religions preached in the past and maybe even still preach today that are clearly and demonstrably false. Then there are other things that religions preach which are metaphysical and therefore far beyond the realm of human comprehension. This is the thing that keeps religions viable today-the uncertain nature of their purported "truths." It is unclear if what they preach could be true or not. It is because of this doubt, actually, that people "believe" in religions.

There are certain ideas within Scientology that are metaphysical and cannot be explicitly disproven, in a sense. Why is this different from other religions? Even if the ideas seem absurd, in a way are they clearly more absurd than the idea of a large, all-encompassing, omnipotent, omnipresent, invisible sort of man like thing which governs destiny and everything else? Are they more absurd than a pantheon of superpowered humanoid or monster type creatures that control various aspects of nature and the world yet do not seem to be visible, tangible or easily identifiable? Scientology started as science fiction, yeah, but if you think about it, the ideas presented are in a way not that farfetched compared to many other belief systems that you would probably characterize as religions.

This isn't meant to be a diatribe against religion by the way. I accept that people have very deep religious views and could provide tons of reasons to validate their choice of religion. I think there is nothing wrong or bad to have spiritual beliefs that are metaphysical and not clearly materialistically explained. It is human nature. In a sense though, I just don't feel like Scientology differs in extraordinariness from any other major religion, all of which require some suspension of disbelief.

Concerning the matter at hand, I think it is unreasonable to view a demonstrably fraudolent, detrimental and threatening organization with neutral respect as long as it manages to snatch the label of religion.

You don't have to be neutral about it at all however. You can actively critciize it and point out its absurdity. That is the beauty of freedom of speech. It is simply a question of whether you accept that people have the right to believe in it or not, however ridiculous it may seem to be.

I would argue that the leap of faith required by other religions is not functional to abuse.A profit oriented organization which uses falsities to misdirect and exploit acolytes, is in my opinion a deceit and as a deceit should be viewed and dealed with.

Jordan wrote:

Concerning the matter at hand, I think it is unreasonable to view a demonstrably fraudolent, detrimental and threatening organization with neutral respect as long as it manages to snatch the label of religion.

You don't have to be neutral about it at all however. You can actively critciize it and point out its absurdity. That is the beauty of freedom of speech.

I am talking about juridical neutrality towards a fraud due to the religion label rather than the obvious right of everyone to criticize what they do not like.

Jordan wrote:It is simply a question of whether you accept that people have the right to believe in it or not, however ridiculous it may seem to be.

I accept, obviously, the freedom of belief, I do not accept the indoctrination of others whose purpose is their exploitation.